Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2014 16:03:08 GMT -5
There are two more ways of looking at it: 1.The answer may be quite the opposite. If bible-only doctrine does not agree with extra-biblical doctrine, then that is a sign that it is true doctrine. And actually, this is one of the fundamental arguments of 2x2ism on the premise that the bible is a perfect doctrinal offering. 2.The third argument is this: if the bible has many errors (which we know now that it does), it requires extra-biblical doctrine and interpretations to correct those errors. In that sense, it would make the 2x2 way quite inferior to others due to the 2x2 reliance on the errors of the bible to inform them. Jesus left a Church. The Church He said He would build upon the earthly authority He conferred upon His chosen Apostles, guided by His promised Holy Spirit to teach truth, to settle disputes, to administer the Sacraments He instituted, most especially to administer His Body and Precious Blood that promise eternal life. It's interesting that anyone could possibly claim that the "Roman" "Catholic" Church could be the church he would build, let alone leave it to the power and authority of mankind. I suppose if the RCC resembled anything like the church Jesus founded, there could be a reasonable argument for that, but there is very little resemblance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2014 16:05:17 GMT -5
Why are we equating the Bible's doctrine to Jesus's doctrine? Isn't that a bit presumptuous? It's more than presumptuous. It's not accurate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2014 17:35:08 GMT -5
Thanks. I will trawl through that later. But my question concerns what was Jesus' doctrine. Is it possible in a single statement to contain all that Jesus wanted for his church. And make this so comprehensive that even if you had never read the Gospels, you could build your life around it?
Jesus already said love by itself is not enough.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2014 17:57:00 GMT -5
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment. Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on May 3, 2014 19:11:43 GMT -5
Thanks. I will trawl through that later. But my question concerns what was Jesus' doctrine. Is it possible in a single statement to contain all that Jesus wanted for his church. And make this so comprehensive that even if you had never read the Gospels, you could build your life around it?
Jesus already said love by itself is not enough.Have you ever asked the workers why a new convert must sit through many months (if not years) of gospel meetings before being invited to fellowship meetings? See if the workers will provide a single statement to contain all that Jesus wanted for his church. Man focuses on "church" while Jesus focused on the Christ within the individual heart.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2014 20:46:10 GMT -5
Thanks. I will trawl through that later. But my question concerns what was Jesus' doctrine. Is it possible in a single statement to contain all that Jesus wanted for his church. And make this so comprehensive that even if you had never read the Gospels, you could build your life around it?
Jesus already said love by itself is not enough.Have you ever asked the workers why a new convert must sit through many months (if not years) of gospel meetings before being invited to fellowship meetings? they must first be fed the milk of the word, then later they can have the meat of the word... 1Co_3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on May 3, 2014 21:23:13 GMT -5
Jesus left a Church. The Church He said He would build upon the earthly authority He conferred upon His chosen Apostles, guided by His promised Holy Spirit to teach truth, to settle disputes, to administer the Sacraments He instituted, most especially to administer His Body and Precious Blood that promise eternal life. It's interesting that anyone could possibly claim that the "Roman" "Catholic" Church could be the church he would build, let alone leave it to the power and authority of mankind. I suppose if the RCC resembled anything like the church Jesus founded, there could be a reasonable argument for that, but there is very little resemblance. Somewhere there exists still the church Jesus said he would build, the church with the successors of the Apostles, ordained in the line of the Apostles with the prayers and laying on of hands of the church. Still teaching the doctrine of Jesus as he promised they would. Jesus doesn't lie.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on May 3, 2014 21:30:15 GMT -5
~~ The Bishops in the New Testament were church elders NOT the apostles.... Yes. The Apostles were the first Bishops. King James Bible 20For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
21Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. The Apostles, the first bishops/priests appointed by Christ, ordained the Bishops of the local churches.
|
|
|
Post by emy on May 3, 2014 21:31:41 GMT -5
Have you ever asked the workers why a new convert must sit through many months (if not years) of gospel meetings before being invited to fellowship meetings? This year in one mission in our field there is a man who has attended maybe a couple dozen gospel meeting, had several friendly visits with the workers, attended convention 6 months ago and has been to at least one Sun. AM meeting. So "must" is not quite the right word in all cases. This man had no previous contact with meetings until his wife met one of the f&w ladies.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on May 3, 2014 21:58:14 GMT -5
~~~ Do you read anywhere in the gospel where Jesus called his disciple or apostle a Bishop or a priest/s? Using this logic, if Jesus did not specifically say something about a certain thing, then that thing should not be considered as right to do or not do, have or not have.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on May 3, 2014 22:28:58 GMT -5
Using this logic, if Jesus did not specifically say something about a certain thing, then that thing should not be considered as right to do or not do, have or not have. Yes, I believe so.
Well, then... Convention - not just gatherings, but specifically convention. Sunday morning meeting. Wednesday night studies. Female workers. Hair in buns. Men wearing pants. Women wearing dresses.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on May 3, 2014 22:34:58 GMT -5
Somewhere there exists still the church Jesus said he would build, the church with the successors of the Apostles, ordained in the line of the Apostles with the prayers and laying on of hands of the church. Still teaching the doctrine of Jesus as he promised they would. Jesus doesn't lie. There were 82 lines of the apostles in Matthew 10 and Luke 10 AND more apostles were sent forth in the book of Acts and AFTER that..... Peter was only one line of apostles among MANY other apostles... The church of God is build upon the apostles and prophets... Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone. Apostles The Twelve. And Paul. Appointed by Jesus who sent Ananias to ordain Paul with prayer and laying on of hands.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on May 3, 2014 22:43:37 GMT -5
Well, then... Convention - not just gatherings, but specifically convention. Sunday morning meeting. Wednesday night studies. Female workers. Hair in buns. Men wearing pants. Women wearing dresses. If Jesus were here today... Would he wear a robe, walking around with sandal in the middle of the winter? or would he fit in with what we wear today's clothes and wear shoes during the winter.Might depend on his income and where he lived. But that does not properly address what he said about those things. You agreed if Jesus did not specifically say something about things, then those things should or should not be done or had.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on May 3, 2014 22:53:58 GMT -5
Were there any apostle AFTER, Matthias and Paul? Acts 1:20 New King James Version (NKJV)
and, ‘Let another take his/Judas office.’[c]
~~~ Do you read anywhere in the gospel where Jesus called his disciple or apostle a Bishop or a priest/s?
They had to be Bishops, in order to ordain those who would follow. Those who Jesus appointed to teach truth to and baptize ALL nations - to every generation - the same doctrine. Acts 1:20 tells us literally and specifically that the Apostles held the office of bishop. ἐπισκοπὴν ( episkopēn) — 1 Occurrence Acts 1:20 N-AFS GRK: καί Τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν αὐτοῦ λαβέτω NAS: TAKE HIS OFFICE.' KJV: and his bishoprick let another INT: and the Overseership of him let take biblehub.com/greek/episkope_n_1984.htmJohn 16:14-15 - what the Father has, the Son has, and the Son gives it to the apostles. The authority is not lessened or mitigated. John 17:18; 20:21 - as the Father sends the Son, the Son sends the apostles. The apostles have divinely appointed authority. Col 1:25 - Paul calls his position a divine "office." An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it's not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death. Rom. 15:16 – Paul says he is a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable. 1 Tim. 3:1 - Paul uses the word " episcopoi" ( bishop) which requires an office. 1 Tim. 4:14 - again, apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). 1 Tim. 5:22 - Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on the hands (ordaining others). The gift of authority is a reality and cannot be used indiscriminately. 2 Tim. 1:6 - Paul again reminds Timothy the unique gift of God that he received through the laying on of hands. 2 Tim. 4:1-6 - at end of Paul's life, Paul charges Timothy with the office of his ministry . 2 Tim. 2:2 - this verse shows God's intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles. scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2014 22:59:04 GMT -5
Quote - "Well, then... Convention - not just gatherings, but specifically convention. Sunday morning meeting. Wednesday night studies. Female workers. Hair in buns. Men wearing pants. Women wearing dresses."Convening together annually was in the OT - and there were large gatherings in the NT - first recorded was Jesus with 15,000 - 20,000 people for three days.
Sunday is specifically from Jesus. He rose that day and met that same day with His disciples. He met on two other occasions, both on Sundays - am or pm I don't think is important. But am is more symbolic.
Female workers were present. And they had authority.
Hair and dress were covered by Jesus' disciples - slightly outside the brief of this thread.
So how do we put all the positives above into a statement?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2014 23:06:17 GMT -5
The priesthood, such as it was in Jesus' time, ended in two different ways. Judaic and Christian perspectives.
1 - Jesus was the Christian High Priest, no other priesthood was ordained by Him, and in fact, prohibited.
2 - Actual Jewish priesthood ended with the three Roman/Jewish wars. This priesthood was tied to the temple.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on May 3, 2014 23:13:16 GMT -5
Might depend on his income and where he lived. But that does not properly address what he said about those things. You agreed if Jesus did not specifically say something about things, then those things should or should not be done or had. I answered the list you posted...... Jesus didn't call his apostles priests because they were NOT Levitical priesthood tribe.Rom. 15:16 – Paul says he is a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable. scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.htmlThat I should be the minister of Christ Jesus among the Gentiles; sanctifying the gospel of God, that the oblation of the Gentiles may be made acceptable and sanctified in the Holy Ghost. leitourgos: a public servant, a minister, a servant Original Word: λειτουργός, ου, ὁ Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine Transliteration: leitourgos Phonetic Spelling: (li-toorg-os') Short Definition: a minister, servant Definition: a minister, servant, of an official character; of priests and Levites. biblehub.com/greek/3011.htm
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 3, 2014 23:15:33 GMT -5
Quote - "Well, then... Convention - not just gatherings, but specifically convention. Sunday morning meeting. Wednesday night studies. Female workers. Hair in buns. Men wearing pants. Women wearing dresses."Convening together annually was in the OT - and there were large gatherings in the NT - first recorded was Jesus with 15,000 - 20,000 people for three days.
Sunday is specifically from Jesus. He rose that day and met that same day with His disciples. He met on two other occasions, both on Sundays - am or pm I don't think is important. But am is more symbolic.
Female workers were present. And they had authority.
B. Where does it say there were FEMALE WORKERS present Bert ?
Hair and dress were covered by Jesus' disciples - slightly outside the brief of this thread.
So how do we put all the positives above into a statement?
|
|
|
Post by Greg on May 3, 2014 23:18:06 GMT -5
Might depend on his income and where he lived. But that does not properly address what he said about those things. You agreed if Jesus did not specifically say something about things, then those things should or should not be done or had. I answered the list you posted...... Jesus didn't call his apostles priests because they were NOT Levitical priesthood tribe.No, you did not. Did Jesus call his "twelve disciples" apostles?
|
|
|
Post by Greg on May 3, 2014 23:38:28 GMT -5
No, you did not. Did Jesus call his "twelve disciples" apostles? The word sent is apostle... If you were to read the Original text in Greek Matthew 10 and Luke 10 it written the word apostle. Jesus sent his sent one/apostle. In John 20:21 So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” Then your answer is "No, Jesus never called his "twelve disciples" apostles."
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on May 3, 2014 23:54:07 GMT -5
That I should be the minister of Christ Jesus among the Gentiles; sanctifying the gospel of God, that the oblation of the Gentiles may be made acceptable and sanctified in the Holy Ghost. leitourgos: a public servant, a minister, a servant Original Word: λειτουργός, ου, ὁ Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine Transliteration: leitourgos Phonetic Spelling: (li-toorg-os') Short Definition: a minister, servant Definition: a minister, servant, of an official character; of priests and Levites. biblehub.com/greek/3011.htm I don't believe the Protestant ministers like people refer them as priests.... I don't believe the workers like to be called or address as priests either. Nathan. It is the Greek word in which the NT text was written - from which the translation was made to English. The text also writes of ' an offering for the Gentiles' being made - sounds like a priest to me. Jesus gave to his Apostles at the last Passover supper the words of institution for the consecration of the Eucharist. Sounds like a priest to me. Also, if you doubt that the Apostles were Bishops - you can read who and over which churches some were ... Andrew the Apostle; St Peter; James the Just ... Others ... Ananais (who ordained Paul); Mark the Evangelist; Philip the Evangelist; Barnabas; Timothy; Titus .... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1st-century_bishops
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on May 4, 2014 0:30:00 GMT -5
Nathan. It is the Greek word in which the NT text was written - from which the translation was made to English. The text also writes of ' an offering for the Gentiles' being made - sounds like a priest to me. Jesus gave to his Apostles at the last Passover supper the words of institution for the consecration of the Eucharist. Sounds like a priest to me. Also, if you doubt that the Apostles were Bishops - you can read who and over which churches some were ... Andrew the Apostle; St Peter; James the Just ... Others ... Ananais (who ordained Paul); Mark the Evangelist; Philip the Evangelist; Barnabas; Timothy; Titus .... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1st-century_bishops The office of priests, Pope, Cardinals, fathers, etc are RCC offices/position within your Church... We don't read there were such offices/titles in the first Century Church.Ah. But if the Bible is your doctrine ... and it's in the Bible ...
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on May 4, 2014 0:52:54 GMT -5
Ah. But if the Bible is your doctrine ... and it's in the Bible ... There were no Pope Peter, Cardinals, priests, fathers or bishops like we know of today, in the 1st century New Testament Church. These offices started much later by the Romans Catholic Church in Rome.Sorry Nathan. The Bible and recorded history say otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on May 4, 2014 1:01:12 GMT -5
Then your answer is "No, Jesus never called his "twelve disciples" apostles." I just gave you the verse in John 20:21 he apostle/sent them. Jesus called the 12 His sent ones/apostles in Matthew 10. Those whom Jesus and the Spirit sent forth to preach the gospel they are his sent ones/apostles.So, greg did Jesus ever call his disciples.... priests... Like Priest Peter? or Pope Peter?What is your point in asking that? Is it "if he did not call them priests or popes, then there should be or there actually are no priests or popes in the church"? If that is your point, then you have to stick with that for your contentions. If you use definitional sources, then you have to allow that which others use, too. If you use examples in the Bible, then you have to allow that which others use, too. If you use sources outside the Bible that seem to give a progression and/or continuation of the church, then you have to allow that which others use, too. And if you agree what Jesus specifically said is important as to doing or having things, then you have to stick with that. The New Testament is a picture or pictures - so to speak - of a church in its infancy. Some like to think that certain things which were done are to be carried out still.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on May 4, 2014 1:10:56 GMT -5
What is your point in asking that? Is it "if he did not call them priests or popes, then there should be or there actually are no priests or popes in the church"? If that is your point, then you have to stick with that for your contentions. If you use definitional sources, then you have to allow that which others use, too. If you use examples in the Bible, then you have to allow that which others use, too. If you use sources outside the Bible that seem to give a progression and/or continuation of the church, then you have to allow that which others use, too. And if you agree what Jesus specifically said is important as to doing or having things, then you have to stick with that. The New Testament is a picture or pictures - so to speak - of a church in its infancy. Some like to think that certain things which were done are to be carried out still. The Vaudois, who were Paul's followers in Rome 68 A.D. did not call themselves Pope, Cardinals, priests, Bishops, Fathers... The Vaudois preachers call themselves only apostles and their followers the friends/of God, Christians for 1800 yrs.The Vaudois were in Rome in 68 AD? Where are they now?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 4:28:43 GMT -5
Here's how it works:
Imagine it's the 1st Century and the Apostolic Church called its "overseers" or senior church people "Elders." Okay? Fast foward a century or three and all sorts of groups have formed their own churches, all claiming succession from the Apostles. And with their enormous and well funded hierarchies there is a position still called "Elder." Only now "Elder" means an office, a title. The meaning of the word shifts. If you really are an "elder" in your little home church you might feel embarrased - it makes you feel you are holding a honorary position which is not scriptural.
There were only two "positions" in that first church: 1 - members of the churches, and 2 - preachers.
Some were junior, some were elder. And clearly, as in James and Paul, there were what you Americans call "Overseers."
So the term "bishop" with a lower case 'b' doesn't mean what it implies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 4:57:48 GMT -5
Quote - "Meanwhile, down through the ages Christians have been plugging away preaching and upholding the name of Jesus like they do today."
Did you read my thread "In God's Name" ?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on May 4, 2014 5:53:17 GMT -5
Quote - " Meanwhile, down through the ages Christians have been plugging away preaching and upholding the name of Jesus like they do today." Did you read my thread "In God's Name" ? professing.proboards.com/thread/22044/gods-nameWhile the Catholic Church was having its evil way I expect there were faithful people in the spiritual church that Jesus established.
|
|